We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

Latest - AFAIK, there aren't any especially controversial changes with Mare Nostrum, but I haven't been following it very much either.

Click to expand...

Unless you want to just conclude that corruption is uncontroversially terrible, that would be the mare nostrum problem. It adds so little to the game's thought process beyond penalizing you for not being European that maybe it doesn't measure up on the impact front though.

I would never go back to the old fort system, but it's a close call because of the buildings system that goes with it.

Click to expand...

The old fort system was shallow, but it worked.

The current fort system, around a year old now, does not work. Not only is it counter-intuitive nonsense with no discernible in-game prediction of its rules, but it's *also* still bugged in multiple ways.

Just as bad, ever since its implementation the AI will constantly loan itself to death trying to unsiege non-fort occupations with 1 regiment stacks, even if you have nearby forces that can wipe them for free. It's a serious nuisance and good evidence paradox didn't actually care if this mechanic integrated with the game properly before using it.

The rest, not so much. Yes, it is sometime counterintuitive, and need tweaking and improvements, but forts that limit movements makes for far better gameplay than forts that require carpet-siege like the old system.

If Paradox went back to the old system, I would certainly count that as one of the worst change they ever made.

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton's last letter.Formerly known as Oda Nobunaga​

power projection was added in 1.5
though it' the rival system that is the issue more than power projection
(also new forts are terrible)

Click to expand...

"power projection" is just a name slapped on the Rival system and forcing you to game it to death, so I don't see how it's possible to even separate both. And it's really stupid and completely gamey ("you NEED to arbitrarily be on bad terms with these three countries", what ?).

I'm not a fan of the new fort system, but that's more "meh" than "hate".

If violence didn't solve your problem... Well, you just haven't been violent enough.

I see where Paradox is coming from with rivals. From a diplomatic/cultural standpoint, having rivals makes sense, such as the English and the Spanish, or the Ottoman Empire and the Persians. Whether it's implemented the best way, I'm not sure. I could see tying it in with prestige and and having a seperate Power Projection metric. I also wouldn't mind there being more ways than (essentially) just war to project power beyond a small amount. Maybe not to high levels without war, but at least moderate levels.

I mostly agree with Oda on the forts. While not perfect, they're considerably less janky than in 1.12 when they first debuted, and in the end I like the tactical element and that you can't just carpet-siege a country from day 1. I'd certainly welcome AI improvements in that area - and it would be nice if the AI were smart enough with them to not require a big maintenance discount - but I'd consider it a step backwards if they were removed.

And that's part of Paradox's problem - it's really hard to satisfy everyone.

"I don't like bumper stickers. They're a shorthand for people who don't have any time or interest for understanding what matters." - John Bolton
-------C3C Cross-Platform Editor Version 1.27 - November 2, 2018

I like forts as it means that an early defeat or victory isn't as decisive. The two issues are that periodically its not clear whether two armies standing next to each other can move towards each other directly or will have to take a convulted route whilst the AI does know. The other is that they are too expensive particularly after the corruption change. If I have to choose between an advisor or forts I'm always going to pick the advisor.

The rival system I'm fine with generally but it would be cool if they changed for other reasons than just one nation becoming too powerful as otherwise alliances stay too static.

The rest, not so much. Yes, it is sometime counterintuitive, and need tweaking and improvements, but forts that limit movements makes for far better gameplay than forts that require carpet-siege like the old system.

If Paradox went back to the old system, I would certainly count that as one of the worst change they ever made.

Click to expand...

If they ever get the current fort mechanic out of early beta phase, perhaps I will agree with you.

I will not agree that mechanics that don't work yet (in an objective sense) should be implemented in a game, overwriting a known working model. From their cost model to their actual movement restriction rules, new forts do not work.

If they worked you'd have a serious case, carpet sieging wasn't exactly exciting times.

But they don't.

I'm not a fan of the new fort system, but that's more "meh" than "hate".

Click to expand...

If you play the game enough, you learn to hate being penalized for occupying a fort, hate being unable to move anywhere because the game phantom thinks there are suddenly more forts mid battle (causing a shattered retreat with no movement, insta-wipe), hate level 8 fort spam late game that the AI doesn't pay for etc.

And that's part of Paradox's problem - it's really hard to satisfy everyone.

Click to expand...

That excuse doesn't fly for year-long objectively bugged problems. 1.12 and 1.13beta had mechanics that were confirmed buggy, put in the game anyway, and are still bugged over a year later in 1.17.1. That's not acceptable practice.

The two issues are that periodically its not clear whether two armies standing next to each other can move towards each other directly or will have to take a convulted route whilst the AI does know.

Click to expand...

The third is that they're bugged and don't work.

The fourth is that merging armies breaks prior province memory.

The fifth is that there are situations where occupying an enemy fort restricts your movement, even if that's the only thing that happens (IE you are penalized for controlling a fort).

The sixth is that there are bug/exploits that allow move-queued units to walk through ZoC deliberately.

The seventh is that AI subjects sometimes delete them despite not paying for them, and you can't "fortify march" now because they wanted to fix the "exploit" of using your own money to build in subject land.

The eighth is that their function and durability is not consistent with period logistics, and turns the very late game into a chore, despite that such was the time period they were least likely to last long or even legitimately impede army movement.

It's not a bad idea in principle. There have been many proposals to make them better, or at least not abject broken trash where you can't look at the map and determine where you can go. Pdox has ignored those, for like a year now.

Carpet sieges and assaults were objectively better implemented than current forts, because they had discernible rules and consistent function. If pdox was going to replace them, they needed to do it with a mechanic that wasn't in beta.

May I propose that we split the debate over whether the various changes in post-Art-of-War patches improved the game or not off into another thread? Or debate that at Paradoxplaza instead? While fun for awhile, IMO they've veered off into wall-of-text arguments from people who aren't going to change their opinion anyway, and have made the thread both less fun and less inviting to newcomers than when it was primarily about, y'know, playing EU4.

"I don't like bumper stickers. They're a shorthand for people who don't have any time or interest for understanding what matters." - John Bolton
-------C3C Cross-Platform Editor Version 1.27 - November 2, 2018

After all this time I've just decided to give up on Paradox games. Haven't booted any up since February. They are always buggy broken, they always slowly ruin them over time. They never put things they promised into the games, they went public. The Age of Paradox is over I think.

Dum inter homines sumus, colamus humanitatem. ("As long as we are among humans, let us be humane.") ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca"The church must be where there is need, and homosexuals have suffered innumerable discriminations. If the church doesn't free people from oppression, what purpose does it serve?" ~ Dr. Jacques Gaillot, Titular Bishop of Parthenia“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi

Having fun with a Poland / Commonwealth game. My successes arent as remarkable as some other things occurring. Tyrone (Ireland) became a colonial power. The Livoian Order has been expelled from the Novgood/ Estonia region and now controls Norway and Sweden. Austria has conquered France and the Low Countries. This caused Frances capital to move to the Philippines area, causing its remaining European holdings to be label "French France."

Oh and Iceland is now the Holy Roman Emperor (which has become a hereditary title).

I used to be a socialist, a sort of communist,
Now I'm a pessimist, and I don't care at all

"I am a Catalan" -Pau Casals. Visca Catalunya lliure!
Robert Can't has the most adorable avatar on CFC Arya126:the majority of people who dislike the gay movement dont dislike them because they are gay. They are disliked because they are so vocal abouts 'Gays Rights'KingScarlet:The same reason why the majority of people who disliked the civil rights movement did so not because they hated blacks, but because of this whole "black rights".

"I am a Catalan" -Pau Casals. Visca Catalunya lliure!
Robert Can't has the most adorable avatar on CFC Arya126:the majority of people who dislike the gay movement dont dislike them because they are gay. They are disliked because they are so vocal abouts 'Gays Rights'KingScarlet:The same reason why the majority of people who disliked the civil rights movement did so not because they hated blacks, but because of this whole "black rights".